Abstinence Violation Effect AVE

Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts. Since no single hazard or odds ratio statistic exists to be reported for interactions, χ2 values are reported instead for simplicity of interpretation (Allison, 2010). Although the benefits of 12-step participation may (and quite often do) outweigh the added AVE risk, clinicians should be aware of this particular risk and take steps to counteract it.

Relapse Prevention And Ongoing Treatment At Bedrock

• To that end, the use of abstinence as the dominant drinking goal across alcoholism treatment programs in the United States may in fact deter individuals who would otherwise seek treatment for alcohol problems should CD be proposed as an acceptable goal.
• Many researchers define relapse as a process rather than as a discrete event and thus attempt to characterize the factors contributing to relapse3.
• For example, at a large outpatient SUD treatment center in Amsterdam, goal-aligned treatment for drug and alcohol use involves a version of harm reduction psychotherapy that integrates MI and CBT approaches, and focuses on motivational enhancement, self-control training, and relapse prevention (Schippers & Nelissen, 2006).
• By providing comprehensive care, our treatment programs create a supportive environment in which our clients can build a solid foundation for lasting sobriety.
• As noted by Adamson and colleagues (2010), treatment goals may change over the course of treatment and must be continuously evaluated in order to promote the best possible outcomes.

For example, at a large outpatient SUD treatment center in Amsterdam, goal-aligned treatment for drug and alcohol use involves a version of harm reduction psychotherapy that integrates MI and CBT approaches, and focuses on motivational enhancement, self-control training, and relapse prevention (Schippers & Nelissen, 2006). Participants with controlled use goals in this center are typically able to achieve less problematic (38%) or non-problematic (32%) use, while a minority achieve abstinence with (8%) or without (6%) incidental relapse (outcomes were not separately assessed for those with AUD vs. DUD; Schippers & Nelissen, 2006). Individuals with fewer years of addiction and lower severity SUDs generally have the highest likelihood of achieving moderate, low-consequence substance use after treatment (Öjehagen & Berglund, 1989; Witkiewitz, 2008). Notably, these individuals are also most likely to endorse nonabstinence goals (Berglund et al., 2019; Dunn & Strain, 2013; Lozano et al., 2006; Lozano et al., 2015; Mowbray et al., 2013). In contrast, individuals with greater SUD severity, who are more likely to have abstinence goals, generally have the best outcomes when working toward abstinence (Witkiewitz, 2008). Together, this suggests a promising degree of alignment between goal selection and probability of success, and it highlights the potential utility of nonabstinence treatment as an “early intervention” approach to prevent SUD escalation.

Historical context of nonabstinence approaches

While there are multiple such intervention approaches for treating AUD with strong empirical support, we highlight a dearth of research testing models of harm reduction treatment for DUD. Next, we review other established SUD treatment models that are compatible with non-abstinence goals. We focus our review on two well-studied approaches that were initially conceptualized – and have been frequently discussed in the empirical literature – as client-centered alternatives to abstinence violation effect abstinence-based treatment. Of note, other SUD treatment approaches that could be adapted to target nonabstinence goals (e.g., contingency management, behavioral activation) are excluded from the current review due to lack of relevant empirical evidence. This paper presents a narrative review of the literature and a call for increased research attention on the development of empirically supported nonabstinence treatments for SUD to engage and treat more people with SUD.

• In a meta-analysis by Carroll, more than 24 RCT’s have been evaluated for the effectiveness of RP on substance use outcomes.
• Another factor that may occur is the Problem of Immediate Gratification where the client settles for shorter positive outcomes and does not consider larger long term adverse consequences when they lapse.
• These hypotheses were supported by the present study, such that participants with a self-reported goal of complete abstinence had better overall clinical outcomes following 16 weeks of alcohol dependence treatment.
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for alcoholism has received empirical support since the 1980s (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985).
• Thus, studies will need to emphasize measures of substance-related problems in addition to reporting the degree of substance use (e.g., frequency, quantity).

1. Nonabstinence psychosocial treatment models

Clinicians have long recognized that client’s attitudes and goals towards drinking change throughout the course of treatment. The dynamic nature of drinking goal may be an important clinical variable in its own right (Hodgins, Leigh, Milne, & Gerrish, 1997). The present study was limited to the assessment of drinking goal at the onset of treatment and future studies examining drinking goals over the course of treatment seem warranted. Likewise, further research should consider matching patients’ drinking goals to specific treatment modalities, whether behavioral or pharmacological in nature.

Treatment programs that allow for and encourage patient-driven treatment goals may be more appealing, and may lead to greater treatment utilization and engagement. This is particularly important in light of the overall low treatment seeking rates for alcoholism, with only 27.8% of alcohol dependence cases seeking treatment in the past year (Cohen, Feinn, Arias, & Kranzler, 2007). Outcome expectancies can be defined as an individual’s anticipation or belief of the effects of a behaviour on future experience3. The expected drug effects do not necessarily correspond with the actual effects experienced after consumption. Based on operant conditioning, the motivation to use in a particular situation is based on the expected positive or negative reinforcement value of a specific outcome in that situation5.

4. Consequences of abstinence-only treatment

Specific intervention strategies include helping the person identify and cope with high-risk situations, eliminating myths regarding a drug’s effects, managing lapses, and addressing misperceptions about the relapse process. Other more general strategies include helping the person develop positive addictions and employing stimulus-control and urge-management techniques. Thus, while it is vital to empirically test nonabstinence treatments, implementation research examining strategies to obtain buy-in from agency leadership may be just as impactful.

Learn From Relapse

Although abstainers had the best outcomes, this study suggests that moderate drinking may be considered a viable drinking goal option for some individuals who may not be willing or able to abstain completely. Together, these analyses seek to further elucidate the predictive utility of drinking goal as well as to identify specific treatment approaches that may be better suited for patients whose goals are abstinence versus non-abstinence oriented. Given the widespread recognition of individual differences in drinking goals for alcoholism treatment, as well as the accessible nature of this clinical variable to treatment providers, the potential clinical utility of such findings is high.

• By 1989, treatment center referrals accounted for 40% of new AA memberships (Mäkelä et al., 1996).
• All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
• In this model, treatment success is defined as achieving and sustaining total abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and readiness for treatment is conflated with commitment to abstinence (e.g., Harrell, Trenz, Scherer, Martins, & Latimer, 2013).
• We are dedicated to transforming the despair of addiction into a purposeful life of confidence, self-respect and happiness.

Advocates of nonabstinence approaches often point to indirect evidence, including research examining reasons people with SUD do and do not enter treatment. This literature – most of which has been conducted in the U.S. – suggests a strong link between abstinence goals and treatment entry. For example, in one study testing the predictive validity of a measure of treatment readiness among non-treatment-seeking people who use drugs, the authors found that the only item in their measure that significantly predicted future treatment entry was motivation to quit using (Neff & Zule, 2002). The study was especially notable because most other treatment readiness measures have been validated on treatment-seeking samples (see Freyer et al., 2004). This finding supplements the numerous studies that identify lack of readiness for abstinence as the top reason for non-engagement in SUD treatment, even among those who recognize a need for treatment (e.g., Chen, Strain, Crum, & Mojtabai, 2013; SAMHSA, 2019a). While patients with goals of complete abstinence did succeed in drinking less frequently and taking longer to relapse to heavy drinking than participants with controlled drinking or conditional abstinence goals, they drank more per drinking day, on average.

Individuals with greater SUD severity tend to be most receptive to therapist input about goal selection (Sobell, Sobell, Bogardis, Leo, & Skinner, 1992). This suggests that treatment experiences and therapist input can influence participant goals over time, and there is value in engaging patients with non-abstinence goals in treatment. There has been little research on the goals of non-treatment-seeking individuals; however, research suggests that nonabstinence goals are common even among individuals presenting to SUD treatment. Among those seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD), studies with large samples have cited rates of nonabstinence goals ranging from 17% (Berglund et al., 2019) to 87% (Enggasser et al., 2015). In Europe, about half (44–46%) of individuals seeking treatment for AUD have non-abstinence goals (Haug & Schaub, 2016; Heather, Adamson, Raistrick, & Slegg, 2010). In the U.S., about 25% of patients seeking treatment for AUD endorsed nonabstinence goals in the early 2010s (Dunn & Strain, 2013), while more recent clinical trials have found between 82 and 91% of those seeking treatment for AUD prefer nonabstinence goals (Falk et al., 2019; Witkiewitz et al., 2019).